Debunk this BS website, can you?

[Princeps Eugenius]

I am asking within the framework of Plantinga argument. You addressed it, after all. Either, my brain is geared towards truth beliefes or not. If it is, then God does not exist. If it is not, then his argument falls apart.

It is pretty obvious that brains did not naturally evolved to grasp fundamental truths. Human basic intuition can grasp only things that are fundamentally wrong, but useful to survive.

And, honestly, if our brains would really be tuned to grasp fundamental truths, then there would not be so many theists around. For belief in invisible agencies is also a plausible natural adaptation. And that puts the final nail on the argument's coffin, so to speak

Ciao

- viole

If it is geared towards truth you would realize, based on the premises, that your perception of the universe is totally wrong. and this would include "natural deities" which you oversee based on your wrong perception. i mean its not that hard to realize that we are agents and gods are nothing more than we are exept that they have higher qualities, how is it not natural to believe in this? it doesnt lie outside of nature, since agency and characters are part of it. if his argument is wrong then naturalism is wrong also, meaning that almost anything is possible. This argument destroy the combination of naturalism and evolution pretty effectively, you have to agree whether you like it or not.

Our brains are geared towards truth. thats why we have to arrive at the conclusion of plantigas argument and realize that your worldview is irrational. the truth about the universe lies outside of naturalism.

 

[viole]

If it is geared towards truth you would realize, based on the premises, that your perception of the universe is totally wrong. and this would include "natural deities" which you oversee based on your wrong perception. i mean its not that hard to realize that we are agents and gods are nothing more than we are exept that they have higher qualities, how is it not natural to believe in this? it doesnt lie outside of nature, since agency and characters are part of it. if his argument is wrong then naturalism is wrong also, meaning that almost anything is possible. This argument destroy the combination of naturalism and evolution pretty effectively, you have to agree whether you like it or not.

Our brains are geared towards truth. thats why we have to arrive at the conclusion of plantigas argument and realize that your worldview is irrational. the truth about the universe lies outside of naturalism.

To say that my view is irrational defeats his argument that our brains are geared towards truths. Independently from me being right or not.

Unless, he begs the question that his view is rational, and dissenting brains are wrong.

Don't you see it?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Princeps Eugenius]

To say that my view is irrational defeats his argument that our brains are geared towards truths. Independently from me being right or not.

Unless, he begs the question that his view is rational, and dissenting brains are wrong.

Don't you see it?

Ciao

- viole

No, by saying your view is irrational defeats your own view. LOL, dont you see it? Anything could be possible then including that his view about brains being geared toward truth. If you claim youre irrational youre destroying your own truth claim including: my view is irrational. It implys that it is true that your view is irrational but how can you know that if there is no truth?

 

[viole]

No, by saying your view is irrational defeats your own view. LOL, dont you see it? Anything could be possible then including that his view about brains being geared toward truth. If you claim youre irrational youre destroying your own truth claim including: my view is irrational. It implys that it is true that your view is irrational but how can you know that if there is no truth?

I am perfectly aware of that. But that would entail that my brain is not geared for truth beliefs. If it were, I could not possibly do this mistake.

Don't you think?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Princeps Eugenius]

I am perfectly aware of that. But that would entail that my brain is not geared for truth beliefs. If it were, I could not possibly do this mistake.

Don't you think?

Ciao

- viole

You still want to have it both ways. You cant say our brains are NOT geared toward truth while claiming that your view(that there is no truth) is TRUE.

 

[viole]

You still want to have it both ways. You cant say our brains are NOT geared toward truth while claiming that your view(that there is no truth) is TRUE.

And when did I claim that there is no truths?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Princeps Eugenius]

And when did I claim that there is no truths?

Ciao

- viole

By saying that our brains are NOT geared for truth. this obviously means you believe we cant perceive truth because its not what evolution cares for or at all.

 

[viole]

By saying that our brains are NOT geared for truth. this obviously means you believe we cant perceive truth because its not what evolution cares for or at all.

That is a huge difference from claiming that there are no truths. Don't you think?

You are defeating Plantinga yourself, I am afraid

Ciao

- viole

 

[Princeps Eugenius]

That is a huge difference from claiming that there are no truths. Don't you think?

You are defeating Plantinga yourself, I am afraid

Ciao

- viole

That is the argument of Plantiga once you delve into it. Naturalism and Evolution are flase because evolution doesnt care for truth and there are no supernatural deities that reassure you that you have a rational mind. Meaning either one has to be wrong in order for a rational mind(we all believe we have a rational mind, naturally) to exist. if evolution is wrong then we didnt come about in an irrational process and so have a truth-based mind. If naturalism is wrong then we could have any amount of deities, who reassure of a governed rationality, out there. you pick the one you like but ultimatevily it has to be an allpowerful and allknowing deity, (not allloving though). if both are false then you basically get the christian worldview with a creation and a god who governs the world.

If you claim that evolution is geared toward truth you have to realize of the many mistakes there are and that not even 1/10000 of our belief are true meaning that its unlikely evolution cares for truth anyhow, it cares for survival and survival and happyness dont have rationality just think of all the brainless bacteria or animals. their beliefs are all false. there is no rationality in evolution.

 

[viole]

That is the argument of Plantiga once you delve into it. Naturalism and Evolution are flase because evolution doesnt care for truth and there are no supernatural deities that reassure you that you have a rational mind. Meaning either one has to be wrong in order for a rational mind(we all believe we have a rational mind, naturally) to exist. if evolution is wrong then we didnt come about in an irrational process and so have a truth-based mind. If naturalism is wrong then we could have any amount of deities, who reassure of a governed rationality, out there. you pick the one you like but ultimatevily it has to be an allpowerful and allknowing deity, (not allloving though). if both are false then you basically get the christian worldview with a creation and a god who governs the world.

If you claim that evolution is geared toward truth you have to realize of the many mistakes there are and that not even 1/10000 of our belief are true meaning that its unlikely evolution cares for truth anyhow, it cares for survival and survival and happyness dont have rationality just think of all the brainless bacteria or animals. their beliefs are all false. there is no rationality in evolution.

Yes, evolution does not care for truths. And this is basically why most of us are basically wrong on most things, including the many self contradicting views about deity.

I have three questions for you:

1) do people believe that one of their remote ancestors was a fish?
2) do people believe that their weight is due to a gravitational force?
3) do people believe you can influence the past, today?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Princeps Eugenius]

Yes, evolution does not care for truths. And this is basically why most of us are basically wrong on most things, including the many self contradicting views about deity.

I have three questions for you:

1) do people believe that one of their remote ancestors was a fish?
2) do people believe that their weight is due to a gravitational force?
3) do people believe you can influence the past, today?

Ciao

- viole

again if you agree that truth doesnt matter why do you care about the self contradiction in the views people have towards gods.
as for your questions:
1) im sure many people are aware of this. but it doesnt matter because fish dont resemble who we are today.
2) sure, i do. and i also know what causes me to be heavier.
3) im not even sure what you mean by this.

 

[viole]

again if you agree that truth doesnt matter why do you care about the self contradiction in the views people have towards gods.

Irrelevant, I am trying to show that Plantinga argument has no power.

as for your questions:

1) im sure many people are aware of this. but it doesnt matter because fish dont resemble who we are today.

Many Christians and probably most Muslims do not.

2) sure, i do. and i also know what causes me to be heavier.

Obviously wrong. If you fall from a cliff you will still have the same gravitational field but no weight.

3) im not even sure what you mean by this.

Simple, can I change the results of an experiment today by altering the past?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Princeps Eugenius]

Irrelevant, I am trying to show that Plantinga argument has no power.

How?

Many Christians and probably most Muslims do not.

We dont even know for sure how humanity began. You can say that evolution is a fact but its a selfdestroying fact that doesnt permit us to be rational and hold evolution as true. im not denying evolution, infact i value many insights it gives, but i dont really care what our ancestors, especially those that dont look human, were like. i dont care for long time past events at all, including dinosaurs.

Simple, can I change the results of an experiment today by altering the past?

I dont think one can alter the past. Its not possible to us. And everything that happend was meant to happen.

 

[viole]

How?

Isn't it obvious how?

We dont even know for sure how humanity began. You can say that evolution is a fact but its a selfdestroying fact that doesnt permit us to be rational and hold evolution as true. im not denying evolution, infact i value many insights it gives, but i dont really care what our ancestors, especially those that dont look human, were like. i dont care for long time past events at all, including dinosaurs.

I dont think one can alter the past. Its not possible to us. And everything that happend was meant to happen.

Wrong. Again. Evidence shows that we can modify the past by performing experiments in the present (see Wheeler delayed experiment). Or that time behaves in such ways that is not even close to what people believe.

And why is that? Simple. We have a natural intuition only for the things that are necessary for our survival. We do not need to escape from predators that run at the speed of light of look for subatomic food. Outside that narrow subset of reality, everything looks absurd or very weird. But the problem is not nature. It is our brain that is not equipped to understand things like quantum mechanics, etc.

So, your beliefs about gravitation and subatomic matter do not correspond to what we observe. Which leads me to the conclusion that your brain, like any other brain that did not study these things for many years, is not tuned for truth beliefs.

Ergo, evolution by natural selection is not defeated and Plantinga is wrong.

Ciao

- viole

 

[McBell]

Isn't it obvious how?



Wrong. Again. Evidence shows that we can modify the past by performing experiments in the present (see Wheeler delayed experiment). Or that time behaves in such ways that is not even close to what people believe.

And why is that? Simple. We have a natural intuition only for the things that are necessary for our survival. We do not need to escape from predators that run at the speed of light of look for subatomic food. Outside that narrow subset of reality, everything looks absurd or very weird. But the problem is not nature. It is our brain that is not equipped to understand things like quantum mechanics, etc.

So, your beliefs about gravitation and subatomic matter do not correspond to what we observe. Which leads me to the conclusion that your brain, like any other brain that did not study these things for many years, is not tuned for truth beliefs.

Ergo, evolution by natural selection is not defeated and Plantinga is wrong.

Ciao

- viole

I suspect you have way to many facts in way to small amount of space.

 

[Princeps Eugenius]

Isn't it obvious how?



Wrong. Again. Evidence shows that we can modify the past by performing experiments in the present (see Wheeler delayed experiment). Or that time behaves in such ways that is not even close to what people believe.

And why is that? Simple. We have a natural intuition only for the things that are necessary for our survival. We do not need to escape from predators that run at the speed of light of look for subatomic food. Outside that narrow subset of reality, everything looks absurd or very weird. But the problem is not nature. It is our brain that is not equipped to understand things like quantum mechanics, etc.

So, your beliefs about gravitation and subatomic matter do not correspond to what we observe. Which leads me to the conclusion that your brain, like any other brain that did not study these things for many years, is not tuned for truth beliefs.

Ergo, evolution by natural selection is not defeated and Plantinga is wrong.

Ciao

- viole

You still dont get the point. If you agree that our brains cant grasp what is truth then none of the things you say are true. including gravity or whatever. its all subjective nonsense of perspective that have absolutely no value to life. Your perception of gravity being so and so is wrong because you have no guarantee its true and have no guarantee that repeated 'scienctific' experiments give us truth - only what appears truth. infact there is no such thing as truth and all your points are absolutely disregarded. you have to PUT ON, like glasses, a worldview where truth is guaranteed in order for science to be true. but your initial naturalistic perspective doesnt give you that so you are mistaken to say that youre a naturalist since you do very passionately care about truth and science(a method to give us truth). you are something very differnt, perhaps some sort of platonist?

 

[Princeps Eugenius]

In other words: nothing you believe the world to be can be true(including gravity, evolution or even gardening), since truth is guaranteed to us. we all are living in world of illusion and you cant even know for sure whether there are other people aside of yourself, perhaps youre the only person truly alive with a rational mind and others are just chuncks of matter who appear like you.

 

[viole]

You still dont get the point. If you agree that our brains cant grasp what is truth then none of the things you say are true. including gravity or whatever. its all subjective nonsense of perspective that have absolutely no value to life. Your perception of gravity being so and so is wrong because you have no guarantee its true and have no guarantee that repeated 'scienctific' experiments give us truth - only what appears truth. infact there is no such thing as truth and all your points are absolutely disregarded. you have to PUT ON, like glasses, a worldview where truth is guaranteed in order for science to be true. but your initial naturalistic perspective doesnt give you that so you are mistaken to say that youre a naturalist since you do very passionately care about truth and science(a method to give us truth). you are something very differnt, perhaps some sort of platonist?

Well, this is not what Plantinga is saying. He is not talking of getting feedbacks from experiments to validate our beliefs (they usually do not validate them). He is talking of frogs believing that eating an insect will turn them into a prince and how this belief could still be adaptive and yet wrong. If our brains were tuned for truth beliefs, Galileo and the scientific method would have been superfluous.

The reasons we do experiments and validate things is exactly because we cannot trust only our evolved brain to make assessments of truths. I mean, most people, including you, still believe that weight is caused by a gravitational field and that any experiments we do today cannot possibly influence the past in any way. Most people I ever talked to, who did not spend years of artificial training, have a concept of time that has been proven wrong for more than 100 years. All people I know, cannot really grasp how nature works at fundamental level without delegating that behavior to mathematics, and that includes the greatest physicists of last century.

Do you have a natural intuition of quantum mechanics or distorted spacetime? Do you understand what it means to convert time into space? When you sit on your chair and reading this, would you believe that you are traveling at the speed of light in spacetime? Do you understand that any dynamics, including birth, expansion, death, are meaningless when applied to the Universe as a whole? Probably not.

So, why do you have a natural intuition of the things you need to deal with everyday and not a natural intuition of the things that cover much more than that, if not for a natural evolution process that just needs to make sure you believe a very narrow subset of things necessary to survive the day?

Does God favor natural intuitions useful for everyday's survival only? Did He make the pinnacle of His creation, the being in His image, with that strong constraint? Why is that?

Ciao

- viole

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

The reasons we do experiments and validate things is exactly because we cannot trust our evolved brain to make assessments of truths.

Slight causal correction. The reason we do experiments relates to particular historical and social (and religious) circumstances. The reason science only emerged once and only fairly recently is because we cannot trust our evolved brains to make assessments of truth (or at least to grasp logic, analytic reasoning, probability, etc.).

I mean, most people, including you, still believe that weight is caused by a gravitational field

I wouldn't even credit most people with knowing what a gravitational field is. I would say most people may "know" that gravity is responsible for weight (despite the fact that gravity remains perhaps the most fundamental unsolved problem in modern physics).

Most people I ever talked to, who did not spend years of artificial training, have a concept of time that has been proven wrong for 100 years.

I'm going to agree with you here because nobody has a clear answer to what time is, but I'm curious to know what the specific wrong concept is that you refer to. Just Newtonian "time"? I mean, a lot of people are familiar with spacetime even if they don't understand it (and honestly, nobody does understand it at least as it relates to reality rather than a mathematical model; that is, the ontic versus epistemic nature of spacetime is an open question).

All people I know, cannot really grasp how nature works at fundamental level without delegating that behavior to mathematics, and that includes that greatest physicists of last century.

The greatest physicists and everybody else, yes.

Do you have a natural intuition of quantum mechanics or distorted spacetime?

Aren't most people born with a natural inclination to grasp infinite dimensional functional spaces (regardless of whether they are endowed with an inner product?) I mean, c'mon! [/SARCASM]

When you sit on your chair and reading this, would you believe that you are traveling at the speed of light in spacetime?

Wait...what?

So, why do you have a natural intuition of the things you need to deal with everyday and not a natural intuition of the things that cover much more than that

Of course not. Why would we evolve to understand things that are relevant to survival rather than a predisposition to grasping the nuances of counterfactuals, conditionals, nth-dimensional spaces, non-Euclidean geometries, and James Joyce?

 

[raw_thought]

Badly written. And all the psychic stuff was silly. However ,I do agree that modern Christianity has very little to do with what Christ taught. It went from a transformative religion (Luke 17;21) to a slave religion based on obedience and punishment.